All levels of government are authorized to apply coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) protection measures; however, they must consider how and when to ease lockdown restrictions to limit long-term societal harm and societal instability. Leaders that use a well-considered framework with an incremental approach will be able to gradually restart society while simultaneously maintaining the public health benefits achieved through lockdown measures. Economically vulnerable populations cannot endure long-term lockdown, and most countries lack the ability to maintain a full nationwide relief operation. Decision-makers need to understand this risk and how the Maslow hierarchy of needs and the social determinants of health can guide whole of society policies. Aligning decisions with societal needs will help ensure all segments of society are catered to and met while managing the crisis. This must inform the process of incremental easing of lockdowns to facilitate the resumption of community foundations, such as commerce, education, and employment in a manner that protects those most vulnerable to COVID-19. This study proposes a framework for identifying a path forward. It reflects on baseline requirements, regulations and recommendations, triggers, and implementation. Those desiring a successful recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic need to adopt an evidence-based framework now to ensure community stabilization and sustainability.

In the 19th century, triage emerged as an administrative concept to overcome the unjust and medically unreasonable consequences of an unsystematic adhoc selection of casualties. Until today, however, triage concepts are often applied incorrectly. High over-triage rates are a well-known phenomenon, which increase mortality rates. In order to examine their frequent occurrences, the article discusses different reasons and presents results of an experimental study. Two triage exercises were conducted: a paper-based triage exercise and a real-world simulation. Both exercises used the same case-vignettes consisting of 5 pairs. Each pair described a patient with the same injury pattern and vital parameters but with differing behaviour (calm/highly excited). Different behavior has a minor but no significant effect on over-triage rates. Over-triage is significantly higher in the real-world simulation than in the paper exercise. This is explained by the characteristics of face-to-face situations themselves: they are more complex and ambiguous, and hold more normative power. Accordingly, over-triage is understood as a means to resolve unclear situations (“better to over- than to under-triage”) and to comply with normative demands “within” the strict margins of an administrative concept.

In this short article Professor Fiona Cownie provides a brief note to accompany Elizabeth Dawson's guide to the archival sources at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, London.